- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 03:27:56 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
On Sun, 24 Nov 2013, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 11/24/13 8:12 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Fri, 22 Nov 2013, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > > On 11/22/13 9:41 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > > > Sure, <option>s are replaced elements either. > > > > > > You mean aren't? > > > > Right. They have nothing to do with CSS. > > In Gecko they do: they're just blocks. > > > They aren't replaced elements, by the CSS definition in any UA, as far > > as I can tell. > > Some UAs render a <div> inside an <option> as specified by CSS. (That's non-conforming, as far as I can tell, for what it's worth. The HTML spec says you're supposed to render elements according to what they represent, and <option> elements represent an option in a select, with a label, value, etc; children elements have no bearing on all this.) > Some do not. How are they not replaced elements in the latter? I don't know what it would mean for them to be replaced elements. The <select> is a replaced element, but its contents have no bearing on the CSS spec at all. But this doesn't seem like a productive avenue of debate, since we've already agreed that the term we're debating is defined incorrectly anyway. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 25 November 2013 03:28:21 UTC